Alert the influencers and grifters everyone, there's a fresh small-sample-size study to peddle. Use code yourdailydietguru to sign up and get 20% off your first order of the worlds first ketogenic cereal.
Purely observance and subjective personal experience. I find the best results for myself are when I stay closer to ruminant meat and eggs as my primary nutrition sources. I tend to feel various forms of ill when I have wheat and legumes (depending on processing).
For most, I've seen the best results when people stay closer to minimally processed foods in general. Paleo, keto, vegetarian, can all be either minimally processed or include in-group junk foods. Personally, I think it's the junk food, excessive sugar and seed oil consumption that most do best without. It's hard to do, and harder still the more restrictive of a diet you may be getting the best results from. Especially when interacting with social queues and food around you.
Oi! is how I find my friends in crowded places. We've all lived with Australians, who taught us. One quick "oi" will really quick cut through the commotion of a crowd and cause our gazes to practically crash zoom into each other.
This is an incredible bit of footage. It's so cool to see the engines looking sideways like a chameleon.
Raises a question: I suppose they fired 2/3 engines not because of a failure, but because 3 engines would produce too much thrust.
That does mean that in a high stakes situation (landing) you can't afford to lose an engine. I wonder if there's any margin there for lighting the third engine in case of engine failure.
A variation of that question is: in the event of a hard landing like the one today, will there be some means for humans to survive?
(Googling the question led me to an article about how Starship does not have a crew abort system, which seems like an unfortunate limitation. I suppose in theory maybe the landing is slow enough that if you know, say, a minute or in advance that something is wrong you could possibly just exit the vehicle out a door and parachute down. I'd guess that's easier said than done...)
I think their goal is to make the Spacecraft reliable enough that it wouldn't need the abort system. In the same way that 737s don't have one. However I think crew is a long way away for now. If they are launching 100 passengers it may be hard to do an abort system that isn't just the entire Starship itself. Maybe for smaller crew launches they will have ejection seats like Soyuz?
The timing of relight probably means there is a zero-tolerance to a flame-out like this when going from two to one engine. A heavier ship might be able to run more at minimum throttle so if one flames out there might(?) still time to throttle up one of survivors that is already lit, from three near mimimum to two near maximum or some combination. These things are moving literally tonnnes of fuel per second so even throttle-up inertia might lag too much unless they can predict failure really early.
One engine didn't have the grunt required(?) but SN8 might have been doomed due to fuel supplying both lit engines. Ho hum.
This was as much a test of the Raptor engines as it was the bellyflop and landing manoeuvre, perhaps more so. They've got data from literally hundreds of Merlin engines regarding failure modes etc. A long way to go with Raptor and many more explosions to be livestreamed!
Not at all sure, but some of the Falcon 9/Heavy failures seem to suggest that SpaceX's thinking on landing is "don't give up, fly it all the way to the ground," when there's an issue.
Especially with the fact that Starship is eventually supposed to fly humans and doesn't have a limit on relights since the Raptors are electrically ignited, I would bet that the software will/does include the ability to light up extra engines in an emergency.
The starship (what we saw yesterday) should have 3 sea level and 3 vacuum Raptors. The booster is currently scheduled to have 28 Raptors (some of which are fixed and some which can gimbal) although these numbers are subject to change depending on what kind of performance they can achieve in the end.
It seems like you're fixated on one definition being "standard" and the other being "savings" - as are so many in this debate. When the time shifts, society as a whole moves with in. In general, I find my weekday mornings less social, less sun-demanding than my afternoons. I wouldn't care if I woke up at 7am to darkness and didn't see light until 10:30 if I had those extra hours of sunlight in the evening when I might cut loose and recreate.
The label for 8 am might as well be the TAFNAP era prince logo. The point is everyone goes to work at TAFNAP, businesses are open until TAFNAP + 8. In case you need to run an errand and talk to the guy that repairs HVAC systems. None of these sorts of errands is pleasurable or light-dependent and might as well be done in the misery of the dark that I lend to my employer for my work hours.
I don't know about you, but in the short winter months I'd rather get to work at night, run my lunch errands when the sun is 3/4 up in the sky, and end my work day with a couple of hours of sunlight to spare in the afternoon when my time is my own than burn sunlight driving in a cubicle.
There are some that manage to make use of early morning light to go surf (when the wind is favorable), or do some farm stuff (when the animals are cooperative??). I'd wager that surfers and farmers are a small portion the population and a lot of workers don't have some intrinsic benefit of spending their workday in daylight vs. night.
If we're going to assume that inertia is hard to fight, and that everyone is going to work 9-5 (not even a majority of people work these hours in the US): Set it up so that winter equinox has sunset at 7pm. This has the sun coming up at ~9am during winter at the 40th parallel. During the longest days of summer, daylight would be from about 6am to 10pm.
Most of the modern backpacks portrayed are heavy and designed for 45+lb loads (of which some of these packs will comprise 3+lbs).
Would have liked to see more ultralight representation because it serves as a good counterpoint to all the tech that though effective, adds weight.
Reducing weight has been the biggest advancement in ergonomics for me. A pack is an important part of that total and many of his examples - ladder back adjustment systems, contouring supported by robust plastic and foam, articulating ball joints - add to it.
You Ain’t Gonna Need It - unless you don’t apply that attitude and end up with a 75lb(!) bag.
If you do Costco, and you surf, then you have inevitably come across the "Wavestorm" surfboard.
The original article brings up the trust consumers place in the products Costco decides to sell, and the Wavestorm is a fun example of one such Costco cult.
Curious what effect a doubling in the DWave machine's "qubits" would have on this factor and how soon that's likely to be achieved. Does the complexity / cost of building such a machine scale linearly with the number of qubits involved?
Are there problems that are reducible to quantum annealing that become attractive with such a performance improvement?
A part of me feels like this would work extremely well as a kind of Vine or Instagram for people with GoPros doing cool shit. Yep, social media features and content hosting might be a bit out of scope but it would really close the loop on the whole "videos I've made that no one will ever see" problem.
